John J. McLaughlin Archives - ShowBizCafe.com

John J. McLaughlin Archives - ShowBizCafe.com

I must say that as soon as I heard that British B-actor Jason Statham was teaming up with the Puerto Rican diva Jennifer Lopez in an action flick, my mouth dropped in reaction to seeing one of the worst casting selections done in recent Hollywood history. What does Statham’s violent, testosterone driven, one-liner B-films have to do with Lopez’s dough-eye, ear to ear smile, rom-coms? Nothing! So what was the result? A satisfying union of action violence and sweet sexy comedy. These two stars might not necessarily be a match made in heaven, but each one brings their appealing specialties that can please the mass moviegoing taste, especially the Latino moviegoer who eats this shit up!

As is typical in Jason Statham films, Statham plays ‘Parker,’ a Robin Hood like criminal with a code of honor who teams up with not so honorable criminals to do a heist (this seems to be almost the premise in every movie he does). When things go wrong, the nefarious thugs almost kill our hero and leave him for dead until… he miraculously survives. With the intent of getting his revenge, he meets serendipitously Leslie (Jennifer Lopez), a real estate agent hell-bent on escaping her life malaise, who is willing to help him capture the ruffians in exchange for a enough money to allow her to start a new life. Obviously, things don’t go as planned and blood, illusions of romance and a big payday ensue.

Apart from Jennifer Lopez, there is no Latino actors in the cast. Even Jennifer Lopez’s mom, the veteran Broadway actress Patti Lupone, is Italian. She tries to speak with a Latino accent with the intention, I’m sure, to fool us bilingual Latinos into thinking her dialect is purely “authentic”. Please. Al Pacino tried to do it in Scarface and we’re still parodying him. But Hispanics don’t go to the movies because there is one of us represented on screen. We go because there is a genre that appeals to our social sensibilities – in this case action – the reputations certain actors bring to the table and because we like to have a good time like anyone else. ‘Parker’ accomplishes that.

We know what we’re getting by paying $13 (in NYC) to go see Jason Statham. He cranks them out once/twice a year. But with Lopez it’s different. Her professional job is more about being a celebrity than an actress. It is hard to get a sense for how her acting career is evolving because of it. For her to descend from A-list status to becoming a supporting actress in a Statham B-movie is a bit harsh. It’s fair to say that her film career has officially reached a nadir that will most likely continue this way. Her finest acting moment was supposed to be 2006’s “El Cantante,” but she squandered a precious opportunity, and so did Marc Anthony, who if he had been given the chance to shine, his career could have skyrocketed. The last time she was the lead star in a movie it was 2010’s “The Back-Up Plan,” but her last appearance was last year’s “What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” a mish-mash of comedy clichés that should’ve been left in the retired jokes closet from where they came from. Still, her output is charming enough to maintain a level of likability in Hollywood and amongst moviegoers that that will allow her to continue working.

By no means is “Parker” a must-see action movie, but in the same breath, it is not one to be dismissive about. It manages to charm, amuse, entertain and laugh at. If I can do that in one sitting from a movie, then it deserves my time and money.

Jason Statham is one of my favorite action stars because he always delivers, he can carry a whole movie and entertain us blow by blow all the way through, but that’s not the case with ‘Parker’, because the biggest handicaps it has are Jennifer Lopez and an extremely weak script. The movie has some violent fun and could have been better if Lopez’s persona wouldn’t have been given such a big chunk of time, which works as a major break pedal for the flow of the film and the story. There are some memorable fight scenes but the movie gets so wrecked that it’s hard to enjoy it as a whole.

In this crime-thriller Parker (Jason Statham) is a thief that gets left behind for dead by the last group of men he worked with. To get vengeance and follow his principles he makes a plan to get back at these men and recruits Leslie (Jennifer Lopez) a woman whose dull life leads her to volunteer to be part of this dangerous plan.

Despite of the fact that Statham’s character has a weird set of morals and principals for a criminal, I could have gone along with the poorly executed story and enjoyed it if it wouldn’t have taken a screeching halt the second Lopez comes into it. Lopez’s story isn’t completely distracting as it serves a small purpose, but as soon as she completes the task her part should have been done; instead she’s left to wonder around to be one more thing the main character has to worry about. I’m not going to bother speaking about JLo’s acting as her character is completely irrational and is just a huge annoyance that could have been avoided or at least toned down.

The fight scenes are the only things that would get me to recommend this movie, as they are completely entertaining and leave you openmouthed. At the beginning there’s some comedy along with the action, which is where the picture of a “good” criminal gets woven in. There’s this weird 80’s tone and feel towards the middle of the film, all contributed to bad filmmaking. Here is where the movie really slows down and begins to loose its essence showing how little effort director Taylor Hackford put into this film.

Once the movie looses our interest it’s very hard for it to get it back and it all begins with Lopez’s appearance, from there it all just goes downhill. If you like seeing Statham on screen you might be able to stay for it all despite of him running on auto-mode for a while with a poor southern accent, but it will be hard to get through the very slow painful middle of the film and past JLo’s character of a sad and desperate woman. If you are not already a fan of Statham’s work then there’s no reason why you should put yourself through this, even though it does have some very cool fight scenes it’s not worth it.

Sacha Gervasi’s ‘Hitchcock’ is a fun, amusing film for fans of “The Master of Suspense” director Alfred Hitchcock and those familiar with his movie ‘Psycho’ in particular. It’s an enjoyable experience because we are provided so much of the movie we revere and the man we already want to know more of. That in itself makes it a success. Add memorable performances by Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren and James D’Arcy, some pleasing humor and enlightening facts, and you have yourself a movie worth paying to see. Now the problem would be if you never saw ‘Psycho’ and could care less about Hitchcock.

Contrary to what the title says, ‘Hitchcock’ is actually a complex love story, not a biopic of the life of director Alfred Hitchcock. Lurking behind Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), cinema’s horror icon known for orchestrating some of the most intense experiences of menace and intrigue audiences have ever seen, was a hidden side: his creatively and explosive romance with his supportive wife and filmmaking collaborator, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) – many say the secret to his success. Acting as a backdrop to the Hitchcock’s love life is the making of the hair-raising 1960 thriller, ‘Psycho,’ which would become the director’s most controversial and legendary film. When the tumultuous, against-the-odds production was over, nothing about movies would ever be the same – but few realized that it took two to pull it off. The story is rife with surprises, comic ironies and dark twists in the Hitchockian tradition. But at the heart of the film lies not only the obsessions and fears of two people but the distinctively tenacious love that drove Hitchcock’s art behind the curtain.

Cinematically, Gervasi seeps the film with Hitchcockian clichés and quirks that serve as winks to fans of Hitchcock, his films and his television show. For example, the opening of the film has Hopkins giving an introduction to the movie as if it was an episode of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents.” Very clever and cool. The whole movie is sprinkled with moments like this. Gervasi also manages to provide us with an insightful look at how difficult it was to make ‘Psycho,’ both financially and marketing-wise. Furthermore, the MPAA wouldn’t allow it a release at first, and when it did, the editing wasn’t up to par, in particular, the shower scene. Go figure.

The script by John J. McLaughlin is tight and moves quickly, but the choice of a love story, based on the book by Stephen Rebello “Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho,” isn’t what I necessarily wanted to see. As much as Alma was a part of his life, she wasn’t in ours, the public. More interesting are the moments that take place on the set and how the film was made. Alas, Hollywood always feels we need a love story, but I was fine without one.

The acting is superb. Anthony Hopkins nailed Hitchcock as we remember him, even if he might have been a bit cartoonish with him at times. Helen Mirren is wonderful and commands the screen as she usually does, but I thoroughly enjoyed James D’Arcy performance of actor Anthony Perkins, Norman Bates himself . Not only did he look like him, he embodied his essence. One blunder that was evident, but fortunately didn’t become a detriment to the film was the miscast of Scarlett Johansson’s as Janet Leigh. She was Scarlett Johansson trying to act like someone else. The true indication of a great actor is when they can make you forget the star they are in the public eye and immerse you in the character they’re inhabiting. This was not the case for Johansson and not sure if I have ever really seen her do that in her young career.

Despite the aforementioned minor oversight, ‘Hitchcock’ is a must see movie for anyone curious in having a front row seat to the movie making process of Alfred Hitchcock, his idiosyncrasies and the type of husband he was. If none of this tickles your fancy, your best advised to invest your time and money in something more traditional and commercial.